Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of this committee, for inviting the National Parole Board to appear before you as you examine the state of organized crime in Canada.
I'm Harvey Cenaiko. I was appointed chairperson of the National Parole Board last July. Prior to this, I was vice-chair of the prairies region, based here in Edmonton. Before I joined the board, I was the Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security for the Province of Alberta and MLA for Calgary--Buffalo here in the province of Alberta after having spent 25 years in policing with the Calgary Police Service.
Joining me today is the regional director general of the National Parole Board's prairies region, Bernie Pitre. Mr. Pitre has been with the board for six years and has almost 35 years of experience in working in the criminal justice system.
For those of you who may not be intimately familiar with the National Parole Board, I will explain that we are a small agency within the federal public safety portfolio. We are at arm's length from government. Our conditional release and pardons decisions are made by highly trained, independent board members.
Today I will speak to you generally about the board's approach to making parole decisions regarding offenders with organized crime links. I will also raise some of the more specific challenges faced by the board in this regard.
Over time, the board has developed a thorough and robust system for evaluating the risks posed by offenders. I believe our statistics attest to this. Over 90% do not reoffend while on conditional release and 99% do not reoffend violently while on conditional release.
Our members come from diverse backgrounds, but they are recruited because they have the necessary aptitudes to make sound decisions on very difficult issues. The board provides them with ongoing training, using the latest evidence-based research in decision-making, risk assessment, and risk management techniques. This helps to ensure that they have the knowledge and skills to evaluate risks to the community that an offender may present and make appropriate decisions to allow or deny parole.
Under law, in policy, and in practice, the board's first consideration in all of its decisions is to protect society. Every day in every region our members conduct hearings where they must evaluate an individual's risk to reoffend. This risk for reoffending is of particular concern for offenders involved in organized crime, given the potential for violence.
In addition to our general policies on decision-making, we have specific provisions to guide board members to take into account information related to organized crime and criminal gangs. In addition to risk factors that are specific to the offender himself, we also assess external risk factors posed by an offender's associates and also the impact of locating an offender with organized crime links in a particular residential facility or community.
The number of offenders appearing before the board who have been specifically charged with criminal organization offences under the Criminal Code is small. In 2008-09 the board rendered 241 such decisions out of more than 25,000 decisions rendered that year.
Having said this, I note that the board clearly sees more than 240 offenders with ties to organized crime. While some offenders' indexed offences may not be specifically tied to organized crime, they nevertheless can represent special risks. But in the vast majority of these cases, our decision-making processes and the information board members receive about these offenders allow us to appropriately evaluate their risks.
In terms of hearings where an offender may have ties to organized crime, the board must occasionally be particularly cautious in its line of questioning. The board cannot treat an offender as a member of a criminal organization unless there is an organized crime conviction under the Criminal Code, even if we have information or suspect involvement. In fact, that is true generally for other types of criminal activities for which an offender has not been charged.
Asking an offender directly about his connection to organized crime when he has not been convicted of participating in organized crime can be unfair, and there is case law before the Federal Court of Appeal. The board is neither a criminal court nor a police service. A direct question about participation in organized crime could lead to an admission about a criminal offence. The difficulty for the offender is obvious: either he admits to a criminal offence or he evades the question.
Why does this put the board in a challenging position? On the one hand, the board members may have information about an offender's involvement with criminal organizations and may decide that this elevates the risk that he will reoffend if released. This can be tricky, as we are obligated to share with the offender any concerns we may have about his potential reoffending. A decision based on information or concerns that were not first shared with the offender may be set aside. Again, these are rare occasions, and we believe we are generally equipped to deal with these effectively.
Let me briefly expand on a related issue concerning the obligation to share information with offenders. As I've indicated, offenders receive all of the information that board members consider about the risk they pose when making a decision about conditional release. The key to ensuring that the board makes quality decisions in the interest of public safety is that we have reliable, high-quality information at our disposal. Board members use this information to properly evaluate risk.
Since joining the National Parole Board, my top priority has been to explore ways the board can continue to improve the quality of our parole decisions. The National Parole Board has held training sessions on organized crime over the years. More recently, we held a board-wide national training session on risk assessment and offered a session on organized crime conducted by Dr. Hugo Foss from CSC, who is here with us this morning. The National Parole Board intends to continue offering ongoing training on organized crime issues, both at the national level and in our regions.
As the board is entirely dependent on criminal justice partners to supply us with the relevant information we need to make good decisions, you can see how the relationships and agreements we have with these partners are vitally important. Some of our partners have expressed concerns about providing certain sensitive information to the board because of the legal requirement to share information with offenders and the public accessibility of our hearings and decisions.
While we are satisfied that in the vast majority of cases we receive all of the necessary information we require about an offender, we nevertheless are taking action to ensure this continues. Through increased dialogue, negotiation, and outreach with our police and correctional partners, the board has been seeking to raise awareness about its public safety role and the vital importance of information sharing. Our partners recognize that we share the same mandate, which is the protection of society.
Our key partner, of course, is the Correctional Service of Canada. Our respective staff work hard to maintain positive working relationships throughout the country. CSC Commissioner Don Head and I have taken steps to further strengthen our working relationship by reinforcing procedures that require the sharing of relevant information with the board, including information about organized crime. We have also reaffirmed the steps that can be taken to safeguard sensitive information so that the board may receive what it needs, yet sources or ongoing investigations remain protected. The law has provisions for those truly exceptional circumstances where information must be withheld from an offender and a gist or summary is prepared.
In addition to working closely with CSC, we are reaching out to police partners to explain how vital their reports and intelligence are to the board. We are exploring ways to enhance information sharing, including a pilot project with police in Atlantic Canada that will allow high-quality information about difficult offenders, such as those involved with organized crime, to be captured and shared with the public safety agencies that need it.
I thank you for the time allocated to the National Parole Board. I'll be more than happy to answer any questions you have.